Vikrant Bhargava v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 66 (TC)
K/S Mountain Invest v Ducat Maritime Limited
24 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 939 (Comm)
High Court
A company missed a deadline to file some paperwork for its court case. They did it on purpose, thinking they didn't need to, but they were wrong. The other side in the case was very understanding. The judge decided to let them off the hook, but they had to pay for the extra costs and trouble they caused.
Key Facts
- •Defendant failed to file its Precedent H costs budget by the deadline of March 3rd, 2023, instead filing it on March 17th, 2023.
- •The defendant's solicitor deliberately chose not to file the budget, believing the parties were in direct negotiations.
- •This belief was incorrect and unjustified.
- •The claimant and defendant subsequently agreed on costs budgets (approximately £347,000 for the claimant and £356,000 for the defendant).
- •The delay caused by the late filing was only one day.
Legal Principles
Relief from sanction test from Denton v TH White
[2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3926
Rules regarding costs budgeting and filing deadlines.
CPR 3.14
Factors to consider in granting relief from sanctions: efficient and proportionate litigation; enforcement of rules, practice directions, and orders.
CPR 3.9(1)
Outcomes
Relief from sanction granted.
While the breach was serious and deliberate, the delay was short, the parties reached agreement on budgets, and the claimant acted cooperatively. The judge considered the sanction disproportionate in the circumstances. The defendant must pay the claimant's costs of the application, assessed on an indemnity basis or generously.